in the case of nash vs. auburn university. Also considering this case and the text discussion, answer the following questions about the hypothetical mid-state university. The policies of mid-state university provide that students who disrupt class activities are subject to expulsion. Before expulsion can occur, however, the student is entitled to a conference with the dean of students. Jim landry is a student who has been accused of obstructing the administration of the school by engaging in a sit-in demonstration. He asserts that he is entitled to more procedural protection than afforded by the conference with the dean of students.
1. Mid state says that landry enrolled at the university and therefore has waived any further protections than those granted him in the rules and regulations. Is this position well taken?
2. Landry asserts that he is entitled to have his lawyer present during any procedures designed to expel him. Is this position reasonable?
3. Landry states that he has the right to cross-examine the witness against him. Is he correct?
4. Landry maintains that the dean of students is biased against him because of statements the dean has made to the effect that landry is a menace and should be removed from the university. Is landry’s objection allowable?
5. Would it make any difference to landry if the university in question were a private rather than a public university? Restrict your answer to the right to a hearing and the general nature of such a hearing.